I appreciate management’s efforts in preventing spam from flooding the Forum. CFI is a market place for ideas, not for goods or services.
However, it seems that the net (filter) has a wide cast and otherwise interesting, informative, or humorous video clips cannot be linked because the clip starts with a 15 second ad from a bank or insurance company. This does not bother me, because anyone who sponsors a “worthy” presentation is entitled to recognition.
In my daily searches of CFI posts and treads, I have only come across one real spammer, who was cleverly referencing words to spam links in his blog. Then, recently there were several posts by people (person) who used their post “signature” for spamming and created several accounts with different spam signatures. Thus at one time there were some 6 active posts, each with different spam links hidden in the author’s signatures. That did bother me, because obviously that person (persons) was advertising specifically on CFI under the guise of participation in discussions.
But, several times now have serious and long standing members (including myself) tried to create a link, but were rebuffed by the server. I find that distressing, because I should very much like to see references made by a serious participant. I know that there is a way to type the addy for copying, but a quick link seems an efficient way to have instant access to the site and use that information immediately in the ongoing discussion. Just because the reference may be sponsored by an organization, does not make the subject matter any less valuable.
Is there a way to allow links in the body of the post but prevent pen-names and signatures from containing links?
Any abuse of spamming in the body of the post could be reported and the member warned or terminated. Until recently, this problem with spam was effectively dealt with, without restricting other members from linking to serious, informative, and sometimes funny websites, without inconvenience.
Can a compromise be programmed? Or is there a way to “earn” exemption from filtering, so that a member could post without being filtered for spam?  Perhaps a coded clearance for members with seniority?  I have always loved the sophistication and user friendliness of CFI Forum programming.

Ever loyal,

Write4u

Hmmm ... awhile ago I asked for further evidence of posts being blocked HERE (post #26) and got no feedback. Without feedback there’s nothing I can send along to our web developer.

I’ll alert him to this thread, but I’d prefer people respond in the other one with specifics. I’d assume the system would let you post a URL without the “http” even if it blocked it otherwise. If so, post the blocked URLs or blocked messages so maybe we can get some idea what the problem is.

My understanding of the module is that it doesn’t filter signatures. This IMO is a serious weakness, however it does seem to be doing a little bit to limit spam otherwise.

You note that until recently the spam problem was dealt with effectively. I agree; it’s because I’ve been on here relentlessly deleting the garbage. I’d like to try to find some automated solution. Our developer feels this is our best option. It isn’t working very well and I’m still deleting spam; less spam but some.

As to the specifics of the module and how it might be tweaked, I have no idea. That’s out of my hands.

[I’ve moved this thread to the Feedback folder since the Complaints folder is really meant for feedback for Mod or Admin actions].

dougsmith - 20 October 2010 04:09 PM

Hmmm ... awhile ago I asked for further evidence of posts being blocked HERE (post #26) and got no feedback. Without feedback there’s nothing I can send along to our web developer.

I’ll alert him to this thread, but I’d prefer people respond in the other one with specifics. I’d assume the system would let you post a URL without the “http” even if it blocked it otherwise. If so, post the blocked URLs or blocked messages so maybe we can get some idea what the problem is.
My understanding of the module is that it doesn’t filter signatures. This IMO is a serious weakness, however it does seem to be doing a little bit to limit spam otherwise.
You note that until recently the spam problem was dealt with effectively. I agree; it’s because I’ve been on here relentlessly deleting the garbage. I’d like to try to find some automated solution. Our developer feels this is our best option. It isn’t working very well and I’m still deleting spam; less spam but some.
As to the specifics of the module and how it might be tweaked, I have no idea. That’s out of my hands.
[I’ve moved this thread to the Feedback folder since the Complaints folder is really meant for feedback for Mod or Admin actions].

Thank you Doug, for your prompt attention, and apologies for underestimating the problem.

Let me try to reconstruct. I ran across a cute halloween season video clip on Jokeroo,com. This clip was preceded by a 15 second ad for a large corporation. After watching the clip and deciding this might be a humorous diversion, I copied the link from my Explorer’s address bar.
I opened a new thread titled “Spooky puppies” and pasted the link. When trying previewing the post I received an error message of spam.  After several times editing the link, i.e “...”, (...), and address cropping, every time I tried to preview I received that error message. Apparently any editing does not affect the underlying web address. I did not try to type that rather lengthy address and gave up.
I will attempt to copy/paste now: jokeroo.com/videos/animal/spooky-newborn-puppies
and try to post without previewing.

edit: ok, it would not take the full addy but it can be edited. But the reader will still have to copy/paste to address bar. Cumbersome but doable.

Annoying and I’m not sure what the problem is. (For all I know it has nothing to do with the ad at the beginning). Anyhow the module is completely opaque to me, maybe our web developer will know more.

OK, apparently the spam module has been turned OFF for now on the Forum. We’ll see what happens.

dougsmith - 21 October 2010 08:37 AM

OK, apparently the spam module has been turned OFF for now on the Forum. We’ll see what happens.

More spam. 

George - 21 October 2010 08:45 AM

dougsmith - 21 October 2010 08:37 AM

OK, apparently the spam module has been turned OFF for now on the Forum. We’ll see what happens.

More spam. 

Probably ... 

dougsmith - 21 October 2010 10:16 AM

George - 21 October 2010 08:45 AM

dougsmith - 21 October 2010 08:37 AM

OK, apparently the spam module has been turned OFF for now on the Forum. We’ll see what happens.

More spam. 

Probably ... 

Doug, I did not mean to burden you with more of such unrewarding policing of spam. I was merely inquiring as to any possible options. Personally, I could live with a technical inconvenience and enjoy more of your knowledgeable insights in our treads.
In any case, thank you for your dedication to make CFI Forum more convenient to its users. 

Write4U - 21 October 2010 09:32 PM

Doug, I did not mean to burden you with more of such unrewarding policing of spam. I was merely inquiring as to any possible options. Personally, I could live with a technical inconvenience and enjoy more of your knowledgeable insights in our treads.
In any case, thank you for your dedication to make CFI Forum more convenient to its users. 

No worries. It was clear that the spam module wasn’t playing nice with the Forum software; it seems more tailored for the blogs, which is where it will stay. Hopefully when we go through with an eventual systems upgrade we can try other things.